You need to have your kids read outside of school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

Sorry doesn't ring true to me. My parents never ever read to me and I devoured books as a kid. Read everything I could get my hands on. I didn't want to be read at or to, I read myself. You can't force kids to love reading. They either do or they don't.

I'm the PP and I was like you -- loved to read even though my parents never read to me, was an advanced reader in elementary.

But I went to school in a school system that assigned a lot of novels, forced me to read and think about classic (and challenging) books, and had high expectations for my reading and writing ability. Our kids are not in that environment. Plus they have the distraction of handheld screens everywhere, especially at school.

I also disagree that kids either love reading or don't. Would you say the same about music or movies? Some people just can't watch movies, that's how it is? I think as long as kids can find a way to experience the pure pleasure of reading a really engaging story, they will love it. The problem is that many kids lag behind in reading ability or have learning disorders to overcome, and this makes reading arduous and unpleasant. By the time they are proficient in reading, they have negative associations with reading and don't seek out engaging texts (or resort to graphic novels because they are easier to read) and therefore never "level up" in the kinds of books they read, and just don't experience the pleasure of reading challenging but very engaging literature.

If parents keep reading to kids through elementary, you can fix all these problems. You can provide your kids with the classic and challenging literature that MCPS will not. You can show them what it feels like to read a longer novel start to finish, and the pleasures associated with this task. You can give them a break from their own reading challenges that can make reading feel like a chore, while still building their vocabulary, experiencing advanced story structure, etc.

If people really don't have the time for 30 minutes of reading a night with kids, you could maybe approximate this with audio books. But I think it's better if parents read with kids because I've found that this makes it easier to ensure kids are following the story, to stop and answer questions about what words mean or what is happening, and to ensure the reading material is age appropriate and not too scary or boring.

I have 3 kids. Read to all of them. One loves to read, one hates it, and one prefers to build intricate Lego structures and stages battle scenes and draws a lot. They are who they are. They are all great readers but they don't all love to read or do it for fun.

How old are they?

What difference does it make? They are late elem school and high school. Not 6 yr olds.

The whole point is reading to them well past when they are 6 years old, so that's why. The implication is that if you'd continued reading to them throughout elementary instead of deciding "oh well some kids just don't like books" then all of your kids would be independent readers instead of just the one who happened to like it without you supporting it much.

Lots of skills are like this. You can let your kids self-select into sports or playing instruments, but some families will find a way to encourage such that all their kids ultimately do it. That's why you see families where all the kids are HS athletes or they are all proficient at piano and violin. It's not an accident -- their parents cultivated that interest instead of just waiting to see which kids naturally gravitated towards those activities.

Well reading is similar. Sure, some kids will like reading no matter what. But you can turn just about any kid into a reader with the right support, just like just about any kid can become proficient at dance or soccer or music if you really prioritize it and find ways to get your kids engaged and willing to do it. And parents also doing these activities will make it much more likely kids will do them too, I've noticed.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

NP - no, that's not what it takes. There's research on this stuff. I'm not discouraging anyone from reading to or with their kids, but this level of investment in reading isn't necessary for most kids to become strong readers. They don't need to love reading for pleasure, because reading for pleasure isn't a virtue. Good for you, glad all this worked for your kids, but for all the parents of young kids who read this and think, there's no way I could do all that, you don't have to.

You DO need to pay attention to how well your kids are reading and if they're struggling still in first grade, do something about that.

Reading for pleasure may not be a virtue, but it sure is a good way for them to accelerate their reading ability.

Sure. But that reading regimen is extreme, said as someone who loves reading for pleasure, and has from a young age. Kids have other interests, families do other things. Again, I'm all for reading - but what's described is one person's experience. There are other ways to increase the chance that kids read for pleasure that don't involve extended parental involvement.

I thought the main point of the post was that reading to/with kids beyond the early childhood years is important. Is that extended parental involvement? Is that not typical?

You think it's typical that parents read novels to their kids through elementary school? Daily? That a family reading for 30 minutes together in the same room, also daily, is typical? Seriously?

I don’t think family reading is typical, but yes I absolutely thought UMC parents were reading novels to their elementary age kids. We do, our parents did, our friends did and do. Happy to be corrected in my impression but yes I’m shocked if this isn’t typical.

Shocked? Lol.

We're UMC. I even have a Ph.D., go figure! DH and I read to all of our kids from a very young age, some novels to our oldest especially - because we had the time - but that petered out as they got older. Maybe by first or second grade? We put them to bed by sitting and talking about their days or whatever else. If they wanted a book, sure, but frankly by the time our older two were in second grade, they wanted to read themselves in bed. They're in eighth and sixth grades now and most nights, we have to tell them to put the book down and go to bed.

As I noted in a different post, our youngest has dyslexia, so we do still read to him nightly (he's in fourth). I hope someday he'll want to read for pleasure, but he's wired differently.

My larger point is that, no, most kids do not need years and years of being read to to become strong readers. I've seen that very clearly, up-front, with two kids who learned to read with no special intervention and one who struggles mightily, despite being a super smart kid. Would more kids benefit from being read to for longer? Sure. But that's not what's being discussed in this thread.

That actually makes more sense to me and is less shocking, lol. PP had claimed that parents were abandoning reading aloud to kids once kids could read *at all* and advocated for nightly novel reading. If kids are picking up the nightly novel reading without parental involvement, I don’t think many people are going to find a deficit there.

To my understanding, PPs were advocating for reading novels to your kid throughout elementary school, i.e., well past the age when most kids can read at all, let alone read novels.

My issue is with anyone who insists that regular family novel reading for the duration of elementary school, is *required* ("what it takes") for kids to become strong readers. It's not. It's both too much for most kids and not enough for some kids. Those with dyslexia need much more structured intervention than being read to, even if what's being read to them are novels. In fact, this idealized vision of cozy reading being What Kids Need *doesn't* align with evidence-based reading instruction, but it's what a lot of educators thought was needed before the Sold a Story podcast and some other information came to light.

If you read the original post, it talks about how obviously kids also need to be taught HOW to read, and doesn't claim that reading to your kids will help them learn to read. Kids have to be taught to read using a phonics-based curriculum, all kids should be tested for dyslexia and other IDs in 1st grade or thereabouts and provided with additional support to overcome those challenges. No one is suggesting you can will those problems away by reading to them.

The point is that in order to acquire a love books and a will (and stamina) to read full novels on their own, they need to experience what that looks like, and the best way for kids to acquire that experience is for their parents to read them full novels. Otherwise your kid may never even attempt to read a novel as difficult as, say, Little Women or Lord of the Rings, because they will initially find the language difficult and they will have no experience with the extremely big payoff to sticking with it.

I also don't think 30 minutes of being read to by a parent is "too much" for any kid. In what way? If it's a good book, they will enjoy it. Heck, I listen to audio books as an adult all the time. No one is harmed by being read to. It's pleasurable.

I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. I do think the original PP I responded to implied that, yes, you DO need to read to your kids, a lot, and for a long time in addition to evidence-based reading instruction. "This is what it takes." And, no, many kids do NOT need to read to your kids for years in order for them to become great readers.

Where's the research on what's needed to acquire a love of books? You and others are posting opinions, but little evidence. I think a lot of parents who love to read want their children to also love to read, to the point of thinking that's something they can control.

Also, no one said anyone is harmed by being read to. Suggesting parents MUST read to their kids for 30 minutes a night, through elementary school, on top of work and homework and activities and sports and family dinner and everything else we're supposed to do - or else our kids won't become good readers - isn't reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

NP - no, that's not what it takes. There's research on this stuff. I'm not discouraging anyone from reading to or with their kids, but this level of investment in reading isn't necessary for most kids to become strong readers. They don't need to love reading for pleasure, because reading for pleasure isn't a virtue. Good for you, glad all this worked for your kids, but for all the parents of young kids who read this and think, there's no way I could do all that, you don't have to.

You DO need to pay attention to how well your kids are reading and if they're struggling still in first grade, do something about that.

Reading for pleasure may not be a virtue, but it sure is a good way for them to accelerate their reading ability.

Sure. But that reading regimen is extreme, said as someone who loves reading for pleasure, and has from a young age. Kids have other interests, families do other things. Again, I'm all for reading - but what's described is one person's experience. There are other ways to increase the chance that kids read for pleasure that don't involve extended parental involvement.

I thought the main point of the post was that reading to/with kids beyond the early childhood years is important. Is that extended parental involvement? Is that not typical?

You think it's typical that parents read novels to their kids through elementary school? Daily? That a family reading for 30 minutes together in the same room, also daily, is typical? Seriously?

I don’t think family reading is typical, but yes I absolutely thought UMC parents were reading novels to their elementary age kids. We do, our parents did, our friends did and do. Happy to be corrected in my impression but yes I’m shocked if this isn’t typical.

Shocked? Lol.

We're UMC. I even have a Ph.D., go figure! DH and I read to all of our kids from a very young age, some novels to our oldest especially - because we had the time - but that petered out as they got older. Maybe by first or second grade? We put them to bed by sitting and talking about their days or whatever else. If they wanted a book, sure, but frankly by the time our older two were in second grade, they wanted to read themselves in bed. They're in eighth and sixth grades now and most nights, we have to tell them to put the book down and go to bed.

As I noted in a different post, our youngest has dyslexia, so we do still read to him nightly (he's in fourth). I hope someday he'll want to read for pleasure, but he's wired differently.

My larger point is that, no, most kids do not need years and years of being read to to become strong readers. I've seen that very clearly, up-front, with two kids who learned to read with no special intervention and one who struggles mightily, despite being a super smart kid. Would more kids benefit from being read to for longer? Sure. But that's not what's being discussed in this thread.

That actually makes more sense to me and is less shocking, lol. PP had claimed that parents were abandoning reading aloud to kids once kids could read *at all* and advocated for nightly novel reading. If kids are picking up the nightly novel reading without parental involvement, I don’t think many people are going to find a deficit there.

To my understanding, PPs were advocating for reading novels to your kid throughout elementary school, i.e., well past the age when most kids can read at all, let alone read novels.

My issue is with anyone who insists that regular family novel reading for the duration of elementary school, is *required* ("what it takes") for kids to become strong readers. It's not. It's both too much for most kids and not enough for some kids. Those with dyslexia need much more structured intervention than being read to, even if what's being read to them are novels. In fact, this idealized vision of cozy reading being What Kids Need *doesn't* align with evidence-based reading instruction, but it's what a lot of educators thought was needed before the Sold a Story podcast and some other information came to light.

If you read the original post, it talks about how obviously kids also need to be taught HOW to read, and doesn't claim that reading to your kids will help them learn to read. Kids have to be taught to read using a phonics-based curriculum, all kids should be tested for dyslexia and other IDs in 1st grade or thereabouts and provided with additional support to overcome those challenges. No one is suggesting you can will those problems away by reading to them.

The point is that in order to acquire a love books and a will (and stamina) to read full novels on their own, they need to experience what that looks like, and the best way for kids to acquire that experience is for their parents to read them full novels. Otherwise your kid may never even attempt to read a novel as difficult as, say, Little Women or Lord of the Rings, because they will initially find the language difficult and they will have no experience with the extremely big payoff to sticking with it.

I also don't think 30 minutes of being read to by a parent is "too much" for any kid. In what way? If it's a good book, they will enjoy it. Heck, I listen to audio books as an adult all the time. No one is harmed by being read to. It's pleasurable.

I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. I do think the original PP I responded to implied that, yes, you DO need to read to your kids, a lot, and for a long time in addition to evidence-based reading instruction. "This is what it takes." And, no, many kids do NOT need to read to your kids for years in order for them to become great readers.

Where's the research on what's needed to acquire a love of books? You and others are posting opinions, but little evidence. I think a lot of parents who love to read want their children to also love to read, to the point of thinking that's something they can control.

Also, no one said anyone is harmed by being read to. Suggesting parents MUST read to their kids for 30 minutes a night, through elementary school, on top of work and homework and activities and sports and family dinner and everything else we're supposed to do - or else our kids won't become good readers - isn't reasonable.

What the person is saying, I think, is that they prioritize reading over... all the activities etc. It IS in fact reasonable if you make it a priority. Saying it's "unreasonable" doesn't make it so. It just feels unreasonable if you don't have time for it. But that's a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

NP - no, that's not what it takes. There's research on this stuff. I'm not discouraging anyone from reading to or with their kids, but this level of investment in reading isn't necessary for most kids to become strong readers. They don't need to love reading for pleasure, because reading for pleasure isn't a virtue. Good for you, glad all this worked for your kids, but for all the parents of young kids who read this and think, there's no way I could do all that, you don't have to.

You DO need to pay attention to how well your kids are reading and if they're struggling still in first grade, do something about that.

Reading for pleasure may not be a virtue, but it sure is a good way for them to accelerate their reading ability.

Sure. But that reading regimen is extreme, said as someone who loves reading for pleasure, and has from a young age. Kids have other interests, families do other things. Again, I'm all for reading - but what's described is one person's experience. There are other ways to increase the chance that kids read for pleasure that don't involve extended parental involvement.

I thought the main point of the post was that reading to/with kids beyond the early childhood years is important. Is that extended parental involvement? Is that not typical?

You think it's typical that parents read novels to their kids through elementary school? Daily? That a family reading for 30 minutes together in the same room, also daily, is typical? Seriously?

I don’t think family reading is typical, but yes I absolutely thought UMC parents were reading novels to their elementary age kids. We do, our parents did, our friends did and do. Happy to be corrected in my impression but yes I’m shocked if this isn’t typical.

Shocked? Lol.

We're UMC. I even have a Ph.D., go figure! DH and I read to all of our kids from a very young age, some novels to our oldest especially - because we had the time - but that petered out as they got older. Maybe by first or second grade? We put them to bed by sitting and talking about their days or whatever else. If they wanted a book, sure, but frankly by the time our older two were in second grade, they wanted to read themselves in bed. They're in eighth and sixth grades now and most nights, we have to tell them to put the book down and go to bed.

As I noted in a different post, our youngest has dyslexia, so we do still read to him nightly (he's in fourth). I hope someday he'll want to read for pleasure, but he's wired differently.

My larger point is that, no, most kids do not need years and years of being read to to become strong readers. I've seen that very clearly, up-front, with two kids who learned to read with no special intervention and one who struggles mightily, despite being a super smart kid. Would more kids benefit from being read to for longer? Sure. But that's not what's being discussed in this thread.

That actually makes more sense to me and is less shocking, lol. PP had claimed that parents were abandoning reading aloud to kids once kids could read *at all* and advocated for nightly novel reading. If kids are picking up the nightly novel reading without parental involvement, I don’t think many people are going to find a deficit there.

To my understanding, PPs were advocating for reading novels to your kid throughout elementary school, i.e., well past the age when most kids can read at all, let alone read novels.

My issue is with anyone who insists that regular family novel reading for the duration of elementary school, is *required* ("what it takes") for kids to become strong readers. It's not. It's both too much for most kids and not enough for some kids. Those with dyslexia need much more structured intervention than being read to, even if what's being read to them are novels. In fact, this idealized vision of cozy reading being What Kids Need *doesn't* align with evidence-based reading instruction, but it's what a lot of educators thought was needed before the Sold a Story podcast and some other information came to light.

If you read the original post, it talks about how obviously kids also need to be taught HOW to read, and doesn't claim that reading to your kids will help them learn to read. Kids have to be taught to read using a phonics-based curriculum, all kids should be tested for dyslexia and other IDs in 1st grade or thereabouts and provided with additional support to overcome those challenges. No one is suggesting you can will those problems away by reading to them.

The point is that in order to acquire a love books and a will (and stamina) to read full novels on their own, they need to experience what that looks like, and the best way for kids to acquire that experience is for their parents to read them full novels. Otherwise your kid may never even attempt to read a novel as difficult as, say, Little Women or Lord of the Rings, because they will initially find the language difficult and they will have no experience with the extremely big payoff to sticking with it.

I also don't think 30 minutes of being read to by a parent is "too much" for any kid. In what way? If it's a good book, they will enjoy it. Heck, I listen to audio books as an adult all the time. No one is harmed by being read to. It's pleasurable.

I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. I do think the original PP I responded to implied that, yes, you DO need to read to your kids, a lot, and for a long time in addition to evidence-based reading instruction. "This is what it takes." And, no, many kids do NOT need to read to your kids for years in order for them to become great readers.

Where's the research on what's needed to acquire a love of books? You and others are posting opinions, but little evidence. I think a lot of parents who love to read want their children to also love to read, to the point of thinking that's something they can control.

Also, no one said anyone is harmed by being read to. Suggesting parents MUST read to their kids for 30 minutes a night, through elementary school, on top of work and homework and activities and sports and family dinner and everything else we're supposed to do - or else our kids won't become good readers - isn't reasonable.

What the person is saying, I think, is that they prioritize reading over... all the activities etc. It IS in fact reasonable if you make it a priority. Saying it's "unreasonable" doesn't make it so. It just feels unreasonable if you don't have time for it. But that's a choice.

This exactly. Some families are going to prioritize family reading, trips to the library, spending time selecting books their kids might like, etc. Another family might prioritize sports or family dinner. If the argument is "well I can't read to my kids every night for 30 minutes because we have soccer practice," well then, that's where your priorities lie. But it doesn't mean that reading to your kids at that frequency is simply not possible. It means it's just not as important to you as other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

NP - no, that's not what it takes. There's research on this stuff. I'm not discouraging anyone from reading to or with their kids, but this level of investment in reading isn't necessary for most kids to become strong readers. They don't need to love reading for pleasure, because reading for pleasure isn't a virtue. Good for you, glad all this worked for your kids, but for all the parents of young kids who read this and think, there's no way I could do all that, you don't have to.

You DO need to pay attention to how well your kids are reading and if they're struggling still in first grade, do something about that.

Reading for pleasure may not be a virtue, but it sure is a good way for them to accelerate their reading ability.

Sure. But that reading regimen is extreme, said as someone who loves reading for pleasure, and has from a young age. Kids have other interests, families do other things. Again, I'm all for reading - but what's described is one person's experience. There are other ways to increase the chance that kids read for pleasure that don't involve extended parental involvement.

I thought the main point of the post was that reading to/with kids beyond the early childhood years is important. Is that extended parental involvement? Is that not typical?

You think it's typical that parents read novels to their kids through elementary school? Daily? That a family reading for 30 minutes together in the same room, also daily, is typical? Seriously?

I don’t think family reading is typical, but yes I absolutely thought UMC parents were reading novels to their elementary age kids. We do, our parents did, our friends did and do. Happy to be corrected in my impression but yes I’m shocked if this isn’t typical.

Shocked? Lol.

We're UMC. I even have a Ph.D., go figure! DH and I read to all of our kids from a very young age, some novels to our oldest especially - because we had the time - but that petered out as they got older. Maybe by first or second grade? We put them to bed by sitting and talking about their days or whatever else. If they wanted a book, sure, but frankly by the time our older two were in second grade, they wanted to read themselves in bed. They're in eighth and sixth grades now and most nights, we have to tell them to put the book down and go to bed.

As I noted in a different post, our youngest has dyslexia, so we do still read to him nightly (he's in fourth). I hope someday he'll want to read for pleasure, but he's wired differently.

My larger point is that, no, most kids do not need years and years of being read to to become strong readers. I've seen that very clearly, up-front, with two kids who learned to read with no special intervention and one who struggles mightily, despite being a super smart kid. Would more kids benefit from being read to for longer? Sure. But that's not what's being discussed in this thread.

That actually makes more sense to me and is less shocking, lol. PP had claimed that parents were abandoning reading aloud to kids once kids could read *at all* and advocated for nightly novel reading. If kids are picking up the nightly novel reading without parental involvement, I don’t think many people are going to find a deficit there.

To my understanding, PPs were advocating for reading novels to your kid throughout elementary school, i.e., well past the age when most kids can read at all, let alone read novels.

My issue is with anyone who insists that regular family novel reading for the duration of elementary school, is *required* ("what it takes") for kids to become strong readers. It's not. It's both too much for most kids and not enough for some kids. Those with dyslexia need much more structured intervention than being read to, even if what's being read to them are novels. In fact, this idealized vision of cozy reading being What Kids Need *doesn't* align with evidence-based reading instruction, but it's what a lot of educators thought was needed before the Sold a Story podcast and some other information came to light.

If you read the original post, it talks about how obviously kids also need to be taught HOW to read, and doesn't claim that reading to your kids will help them learn to read. Kids have to be taught to read using a phonics-based curriculum, all kids should be tested for dyslexia and other IDs in 1st grade or thereabouts and provided with additional support to overcome those challenges. No one is suggesting you can will those problems away by reading to them.

The point is that in order to acquire a love books and a will (and stamina) to read full novels on their own, they need to experience what that looks like, and the best way for kids to acquire that experience is for their parents to read them full novels. Otherwise your kid may never even attempt to read a novel as difficult as, say, Little Women or Lord of the Rings, because they will initially find the language difficult and they will have no experience with the extremely big payoff to sticking with it.

I also don't think 30 minutes of being read to by a parent is "too much" for any kid. In what way? If it's a good book, they will enjoy it. Heck, I listen to audio books as an adult all the time. No one is harmed by being read to. It's pleasurable.

I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. I do think the original PP I responded to implied that, yes, you DO need to read to your kids, a lot, and for a long time in addition to evidence-based reading instruction. "This is what it takes." And, no, many kids do NOT need to read to your kids for years in order for them to become great readers.

Where's the research on what's needed to acquire a love of books? You and others are posting opinions, but little evidence. I think a lot of parents who love to read want their children to also love to read, to the point of thinking that's something they can control.

Also, no one said anyone is harmed by being read to. Suggesting parents MUST read to their kids for 30 minutes a night, through elementary school, on top of work and homework and activities and sports and family dinner and everything else we're supposed to do - or else our kids won't become good readers - isn't reasonable.

What the person is saying, I think, is that they prioritize reading over... all the activities etc. It IS in fact reasonable if you make it a priority. Saying it's "unreasonable" doesn't make it so. It just feels unreasonable if you don't have time for it. But that's a choice.

This exactly. Some families are going to prioritize family reading, trips to the library, spending time selecting books their kids might like, etc. Another family might prioritize sports or family dinner. If the argument is "well I can't read to my kids every night for 30 minutes because we have soccer practice," well then, that's where your priorities lie. But it doesn't mean that reading to your kids at that frequency is simply not possible. It means it's just not as important to you as other things.

It's possible to read to your kids and let them do outside activities too. But I think it's a fair point that there is just so much time in a day. Many experts also stress the importance of 1 on 1 time with each child- we call it "mommy time." I priortize spending time with my kids like that and giving them a say in how we spend that time together. So if I have a half hour to spend with each kid daily, that 30 minutes might look more llike 15 minutes playing a game or building legos and 15 minutes of me reading to them. EVen my 9yo still likes me to read to him each night, FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

NP - no, that's not what it takes. There's research on this stuff. I'm not discouraging anyone from reading to or with their kids, but this level of investment in reading isn't necessary for most kids to become strong readers. They don't need to love reading for pleasure, because reading for pleasure isn't a virtue. Good for you, glad all this worked for your kids, but for all the parents of young kids who read this and think, there's no way I could do all that, you don't have to.

You DO need to pay attention to how well your kids are reading and if they're struggling still in first grade, do something about that.

Reading for pleasure may not be a virtue, but it sure is a good way for them to accelerate their reading ability.

Sure. But that reading regimen is extreme, said as someone who loves reading for pleasure, and has from a young age. Kids have other interests, families do other things. Again, I'm all for reading - but what's described is one person's experience. There are other ways to increase the chance that kids read for pleasure that don't involve extended parental involvement.

I thought the main point of the post was that reading to/with kids beyond the early childhood years is important. Is that extended parental involvement? Is that not typical?

You think it's typical that parents read novels to their kids through elementary school? Daily? That a family reading for 30 minutes together in the same room, also daily, is typical? Seriously?

I don’t think family reading is typical, but yes I absolutely thought UMC parents were reading novels to their elementary age kids. We do, our parents did, our friends did and do. Happy to be corrected in my impression but yes I’m shocked if this isn’t typical.

Shocked? Lol.

We're UMC. I even have a Ph.D., go figure! DH and I read to all of our kids from a very young age, some novels to our oldest especially - because we had the time - but that petered out as they got older. Maybe by first or second grade? We put them to bed by sitting and talking about their days or whatever else. If they wanted a book, sure, but frankly by the time our older two were in second grade, they wanted to read themselves in bed. They're in eighth and sixth grades now and most nights, we have to tell them to put the book down and go to bed.

As I noted in a different post, our youngest has dyslexia, so we do still read to him nightly (he's in fourth). I hope someday he'll want to read for pleasure, but he's wired differently.

My larger point is that, no, most kids do not need years and years of being read to to become strong readers. I've seen that very clearly, up-front, with two kids who learned to read with no special intervention and one who struggles mightily, despite being a super smart kid. Would more kids benefit from being read to for longer? Sure. But that's not what's being discussed in this thread.

That actually makes more sense to me and is less shocking, lol. PP had claimed that parents were abandoning reading aloud to kids once kids could read *at all* and advocated for nightly novel reading. If kids are picking up the nightly novel reading without parental involvement, I don’t think many people are going to find a deficit there.

To my understanding, PPs were advocating for reading novels to your kid throughout elementary school, i.e., well past the age when most kids can read at all, let alone read novels.

My issue is with anyone who insists that regular family novel reading for the duration of elementary school, is *required* ("what it takes") for kids to become strong readers. It's not. It's both too much for most kids and not enough for some kids. Those with dyslexia need much more structured intervention than being read to, even if what's being read to them are novels. In fact, this idealized vision of cozy reading being What Kids Need *doesn't* align with evidence-based reading instruction, but it's what a lot of educators thought was needed before the Sold a Story podcast and some other information came to light.

If you read the original post, it talks about how obviously kids also need to be taught HOW to read, and doesn't claim that reading to your kids will help them learn to read. Kids have to be taught to read using a phonics-based curriculum, all kids should be tested for dyslexia and other IDs in 1st grade or thereabouts and provided with additional support to overcome those challenges. No one is suggesting you can will those problems away by reading to them.

The point is that in order to acquire a love books and a will (and stamina) to read full novels on their own, they need to experience what that looks like, and the best way for kids to acquire that experience is for their parents to read them full novels. Otherwise your kid may never even attempt to read a novel as difficult as, say, Little Women or Lord of the Rings, because they will initially find the language difficult and they will have no experience with the extremely big payoff to sticking with it.

I also don't think 30 minutes of being read to by a parent is "too much" for any kid. In what way? If it's a good book, they will enjoy it. Heck, I listen to audio books as an adult all the time. No one is harmed by being read to. It's pleasurable.

I don't disagree with some of what you wrote. I do think the original PP I responded to implied that, yes, you DO need to read to your kids, a lot, and for a long time in addition to evidence-based reading instruction. "This is what it takes." And, no, many kids do NOT need to read to your kids for years in order for them to become great readers.

Where's the research on what's needed to acquire a love of books? You and others are posting opinions, but little evidence. I think a lot of parents who love to read want their children to also love to read, to the point of thinking that's something they can control.

Also, no one said anyone is harmed by being read to. Suggesting parents MUST read to their kids for 30 minutes a night, through elementary school, on top of work and homework and activities and sports and family dinner and everything else we're supposed to do - or else our kids won't become good readers - isn't reasonable.

I honestly think you and others are being a bit too literal with that post, but I didn’t author it. To my reading, PP basically argued that you should be reading more advanced stuff to your kids until they can do it themselves. I actually disagree with PP’s premise that most UMC aren’t doing this, because that hasn’t been my experience (but perhaps I’m wrong). But if you back off reading to your kids because they are already great readers and doing it on their own, of course that’s reasonable. You’ve already raised great readers. It’s going to take more time with some kids than with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

Sorry doesn't ring true to me. My parents never ever read to me and I devoured books as a kid. Read everything I could get my hands on. I didn't want to be read at or to, I read myself. You can't force kids to love reading. They either do or they don't.

I'm the PP and I was like you -- loved to read even though my parents never read to me, was an advanced reader in elementary.

But I went to school in a school system that assigned a lot of novels, forced me to read and think about classic (and challenging) books, and had high expectations for my reading and writing ability. Our kids are not in that environment. Plus they have the distraction of handheld screens everywhere, especially at school.

I also disagree that kids either love reading or don't. Would you say the same about music or movies? Some people just can't watch movies, that's how it is? I think as long as kids can find a way to experience the pure pleasure of reading a really engaging story, they will love it. The problem is that many kids lag behind in reading ability or have learning disorders to overcome, and this makes reading arduous and unpleasant. By the time they are proficient in reading, they have negative associations with reading and don't seek out engaging texts (or resort to graphic novels because they are easier to read) and therefore never "level up" in the kinds of books they read, and just don't experience the pleasure of reading challenging but very engaging literature.

If parents keep reading to kids through elementary, you can fix all these problems. You can provide your kids with the classic and challenging literature that MCPS will not. You can show them what it feels like to read a longer novel start to finish, and the pleasures associated with this task. You can give them a break from their own reading challenges that can make reading feel like a chore, while still building their vocabulary, experiencing advanced story structure, etc.

If people really don't have the time for 30 minutes of reading a night with kids, you could maybe approximate this with audio books. But I think it's better if parents read with kids because I've found that this makes it easier to ensure kids are following the story, to stop and answer questions about what words mean or what is happening, and to ensure the reading material is age appropriate and not too scary or boring.

I have 3 kids. Read to all of them. One loves to read, one hates it, and one prefers to build intricate Lego structures and stages battle scenes and draws a lot. They are who they are. They are all great readers but they don't all love to read or do it for fun.

How old are they?

What difference does it make? They are late elem school and high school. Not 6 yr olds.

The whole point is reading to them well past when they are 6 years old, so that's why. The implication is that if you'd continued reading to them throughout elementary instead of deciding "oh well some kids just don't like books" then all of your kids would be independent readers instead of just the one who happened to like it without you supporting it much.

Lots of skills are like this. You can let your kids self-select into sports or playing instruments, but some families will find a way to encourage such that all their kids ultimately do it. That's why you see families where all the kids are HS athletes or they are all proficient at piano and violin. It's not an accident -- their parents cultivated that interest instead of just waiting to see which kids naturally gravitated towards those activities.

Well reading is similar. Sure, some kids will like reading no matter what. But you can turn just about any kid into a reader with the right support, just like just about any kid can become proficient at dance or soccer or music if you really prioritize it and find ways to get your kids engaged and willing to do it. And parents also doing these activities will make it much more likely kids will do them too, I've noticed.

I could read to one of my kids all day until I was blue in the face. They would never become a big reader. Just because you can force piano playing until proficiency, it doesn't mean you have a kid who loves playing the piano. Incidentally the kid who doesn't read for fun reads quite well, many grades above level, but alas, does not love it. Why does a kid have to love it to be good at it? They aren't the same. I'm good at a lot of things I don't love to do. So I disagree with the premise that by brute force your kid will have no choice but to love the things their parents have prioritized for them. Ask kids who are now adults how they feel about that sort of parenting.

[Anonymous]

This may be true for some kids but mine never voluntarily read a book on their own yet consistently at 95% on map-R and got an almost perfect score on SAT verbal section. I also have a kid that loves to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is the best school district in Maryland? That’s worrisome.

Naw, Howard is the best school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am overloaded as a parent as are many of you. I saw a stat that most Americans read at below an 8th grade level- many are at a 6th grade level or lower. I then panicked when I found out late to the game that MCPS has been a complete shit show for reading, including not using instructional materials based on the science of reading and having students read below grade level texts.

I started mandating reading at home, because I was worried that my kids would not progress beyond 8th grade- despite having both parents who went to grad school.

No more graphic novels at home and reading at least 2 hours a week of grade level or higher texts. In a few months, DS had read more books at home then for all of middle school.

It's sad that mcps cannot be trusted to do the basics but here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am overloaded as a parent as are many of you. I saw a stat that most Americans read at below an 8th grade level- many are at a 6th grade level or lower. I then panicked when I found out late to the game that MCPS has been a complete shit show for reading, including not using instructional materials based on the science of reading and having students read below grade level texts.

I started mandating reading at home, because I was worried that my kids would not progress beyond 8th grade- despite having both parents who went to grad school.

No more graphic novels at home and reading at least 2 hours a week of grade level or higher texts. In a few months, DS had read more books at home then for all of middle school.

It's sad that mcps cannot be trusted to do the basics but here we are.

Newsflash. Students reading outside of school is a different issue than the problems within schools. The great majority of high achievers read or do math outside of school. You should have been reading to your kids and requiring them to read at home before kindergarten! This is a parenting issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

Sorry doesn't ring true to me. My parents never ever read to me and I devoured books as a kid. Read everything I could get my hands on. I didn't want to be read at or to, I read myself. You can't force kids to love reading. They either do or they don't.

I'm the PP and I was like you -- loved to read even though my parents never read to me, was an advanced reader in elementary.

But I went to school in a school system that assigned a lot of novels, forced me to read and think about classic (and challenging) books, and had high expectations for my reading and writing ability. Our kids are not in that environment. Plus they have the distraction of handheld screens everywhere, especially at school.

I also disagree that kids either love reading or don't. Would you say the same about music or movies? Some people just can't watch movies, that's how it is? I think as long as kids can find a way to experience the pure pleasure of reading a really engaging story, they will love it. The problem is that many kids lag behind in reading ability or have learning disorders to overcome, and this makes reading arduous and unpleasant. By the time they are proficient in reading, they have negative associations with reading and don't seek out engaging texts (or resort to graphic novels because they are easier to read) and therefore never "level up" in the kinds of books they read, and just don't experience the pleasure of reading challenging but very engaging literature.

If parents keep reading to kids through elementary, you can fix all these problems. You can provide your kids with the classic and challenging literature that MCPS will not. You can show them what it feels like to read a longer novel start to finish, and the pleasures associated with this task. You can give them a break from their own reading challenges that can make reading feel like a chore, while still building their vocabulary, experiencing advanced story structure, etc.

If people really don't have the time for 30 minutes of reading a night with kids, you could maybe approximate this with audio books. But I think it's better if parents read with kids because I've found that this makes it easier to ensure kids are following the story, to stop and answer questions about what words mean or what is happening, and to ensure the reading material is age appropriate and not too scary or boring.

I have 3 kids. Read to all of them. One loves to read, one hates it, and one prefers to build intricate Lego structures and stages battle scenes and draws a lot. They are who they are. They are all great readers but they don't all love to read or do it for fun.

How old are they?

What difference does it make? They are late elem school and high school. Not 6 yr olds.

The whole point is reading to them well past when they are 6 years old, so that's why. The implication is that if you'd continued reading to them throughout elementary instead of deciding "oh well some kids just don't like books" then all of your kids would be independent readers instead of just the one who happened to like it without you supporting it much.

Lots of skills are like this. You can let your kids self-select into sports or playing instruments, but some families will find a way to encourage such that all their kids ultimately do it. That's why you see families where all the kids are HS athletes or they are all proficient at piano and violin. It's not an accident -- their parents cultivated that interest instead of just waiting to see which kids naturally gravitated towards those activities.

Well reading is similar. Sure, some kids will like reading no matter what. But you can turn just about any kid into a reader with the right support, just like just about any kid can become proficient at dance or soccer or music if you really prioritize it and find ways to get your kids engaged and willing to do it. And parents also doing these activities will make it much more likely kids will do them too, I've noticed.

I could read to one of my kids all day until I was blue in the face. They would never become a big reader. Just because you can force piano playing until proficiency, it doesn't mean you have a kid who loves playing the piano. Incidentally the kid who doesn't read for fun reads quite well, many grades above level, but alas, does not love it. Why does a kid have to love it to be good at it? They aren't the same. I'm good at a lot of things I don't love to do. So I disagree with the premise that by brute force your kid will have no choice but to love the things their parents have prioritized for them. Ask kids who are now adults how they feel about that sort of parenting.

In my experience, proficiency breeds enjoyment. Sure, there may be some people who are good at things and don't enjoy them, but it's not something I see often. A kid who loves reading is generally going to be better at, and I also think from a practical standpoint, if your goal is to enable your kid to be able to read longer, denser, and more complicated texts as they proceed into higher education, I think it's going to be hard for them to get to that point unless they read a lot. It would be like expecting a kid to do higher level math without ever doing any math except what was assigned in school. I guess it's possible, but it's really unlikely.

I also don't think this is about "forcing" anything. I think the idea is to find a way to make it pleasurable. I think when parents prioritize certain activities, they are highly motivated to find ways for their kids to want to do them. Maybe it's finding the right teacher (or in the case of reading, the right books), offering rewards, allowing a lot of freedom in how they engage in practice, you name it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

Sorry doesn't ring true to me. My parents never ever read to me and I devoured books as a kid. Read everything I could get my hands on. I didn't want to be read at or to, I read myself. You can't force kids to love reading. They either do or they don't.

I'm the PP and I was like you -- loved to read even though my parents never read to me, was an advanced reader in elementary.

But I went to school in a school system that assigned a lot of novels, forced me to read and think about classic (and challenging) books, and had high expectations for my reading and writing ability. Our kids are not in that environment. Plus they have the distraction of handheld screens everywhere, especially at school.

I also disagree that kids either love reading or don't. Would you say the same about music or movies? Some people just can't watch movies, that's how it is? I think as long as kids can find a way to experience the pure pleasure of reading a really engaging story, they will love it. The problem is that many kids lag behind in reading ability or have learning disorders to overcome, and this makes reading arduous and unpleasant. By the time they are proficient in reading, they have negative associations with reading and don't seek out engaging texts (or resort to graphic novels because they are easier to read) and therefore never "level up" in the kinds of books they read, and just don't experience the pleasure of reading challenging but very engaging literature.

If parents keep reading to kids through elementary, you can fix all these problems. You can provide your kids with the classic and challenging literature that MCPS will not. You can show them what it feels like to read a longer novel start to finish, and the pleasures associated with this task. You can give them a break from their own reading challenges that can make reading feel like a chore, while still building their vocabulary, experiencing advanced story structure, etc.

If people really don't have the time for 30 minutes of reading a night with kids, you could maybe approximate this with audio books. But I think it's better if parents read with kids because I've found that this makes it easier to ensure kids are following the story, to stop and answer questions about what words mean or what is happening, and to ensure the reading material is age appropriate and not too scary or boring.

I have 3 kids. Read to all of them. One loves to read, one hates it, and one prefers to build intricate Lego structures and stages battle scenes and draws a lot. They are who they are. They are all great readers but they don't all love to read or do it for fun.

How old are they?

What difference does it make? They are late elem school and high school. Not 6 yr olds.

The whole point is reading to them well past when they are 6 years old, so that's why. The implication is that if you'd continued reading to them throughout elementary instead of deciding "oh well some kids just don't like books" then all of your kids would be independent readers instead of just the one who happened to like it without you supporting it much.

Lots of skills are like this. You can let your kids self-select into sports or playing instruments, but some families will find a way to encourage such that all their kids ultimately do it. That's why you see families where all the kids are HS athletes or they are all proficient at piano and violin. It's not an accident -- their parents cultivated that interest instead of just waiting to see which kids naturally gravitated towards those activities.

Well reading is similar. Sure, some kids will like reading no matter what. But you can turn just about any kid into a reader with the right support, just like just about any kid can become proficient at dance or soccer or music if you really prioritize it and find ways to get your kids engaged and willing to do it. And parents also doing these activities will make it much more likely kids will do them too, I've noticed.

I could read to one of my kids all day until I was blue in the face. They would never become a big reader. Just because you can force piano playing until proficiency, it doesn't mean you have a kid who loves playing the piano. Incidentally the kid who doesn't read for fun reads quite well, many grades above level, but alas, does not love it. Why does a kid have to love it to be good at it? They aren't the same. I'm good at a lot of things I don't love to do. So I disagree with the premise that by brute force your kid will have no choice but to love the things their parents have prioritized for them. Ask kids who are now adults how they feel about that sort of parenting.

In my experience, proficiency breeds enjoyment. Sure, there may be some people who are good at things and don't enjoy them, but it's not something I see often. A kid who loves reading is generally going to be better at, and I also think from a practical standpoint, if your goal is to enable your kid to be able to read longer, denser, and more complicated texts as they proceed into higher education, I think it's going to be hard for them to get to that point unless they read a lot. It would be like expecting a kid to do higher level math without ever doing any math except what was assigned in school. I guess it's possible, but it's really unlikely.

I also don't think this is about "forcing" anything. I think the idea is to find a way to make it pleasurable. I think when parents prioritize certain activities, they are highly motivated to find ways for their kids to want to do them. Maybe it's finding the right teacher (or in the case of reading, the right books), offering rewards, allowing a lot of freedom in how they engage in practice, you name it.

Well, that's your experience. My DH was pushed pretty hard by his parents growing up and was very successful academically, but he probably picks up a book for pleasure reading twice a year. It's just not his thing. I guess maybe my MIL didn't offer enough rewards for him in childhood to foster a love for reading, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to give a piece of advice about raising readers based on my experience:

You need to read to your kids way more, and way longer, than most people do. You also need to start reading them novel length books earlier.

Most MC and UMC parents read to their kids nightly until school age. But they mostly read picture books, and the tendency is to stop reading on e kids can read a picture book themselves, around K. They might still "read together" but the focus will be on encouraging the child to read to them. I actually think pushing kids to read aloud to parents is when many kids stop enjoying books, because reading aloud is much harder than just reading, and especially for a new reader, it can feel like a chore.

Instead, I would encourage parents to continue to read to their kids, and to start reading chapter books as soon as their kid can tolerate it (choose extremely engaging books so that the lack of pictures will bother them less, and the excitement will sustain interest over multiple nights as you read).

And then keep reading. If you read good, engaging novels to kids, they will develop an interest in reading no matter what. Yes you also separately have to support reading skills. If they aren't getting proper phonics instruction in school, do a program like Hooked on Phonics at home. They need 10-15 minutes a day, minimum, of phonics instruction until it clicks. But that's different from reading for pleasure, and if you want your kids to read independently for pleasure, you have to read to them in a way that shows them how mature, more advanced books can be pleasurable.

I would read TO your kids as long as possible, all the way through elementary ideally. Even after you stop reading to them, I'd suggest keeping up the habit of reading together, and spending 20-30 minutes each evening as a family reading in the same room, even if you are all reading different books. No screens except a e-book reader.

This is what it takes.

Sorry doesn't ring true to me. My parents never ever read to me and I devoured books as a kid. Read everything I could get my hands on. I didn't want to be read at or to, I read myself. You can't force kids to love reading. They either do or they don't.

I'm the PP and I was like you -- loved to read even though my parents never read to me, was an advanced reader in elementary.

But I went to school in a school system that assigned a lot of novels, forced me to read and think about classic (and challenging) books, and had high expectations for my reading and writing ability. Our kids are not in that environment. Plus they have the distraction of handheld screens everywhere, especially at school.

I also disagree that kids either love reading or don't. Would you say the same about music or movies? Some people just can't watch movies, that's how it is? I think as long as kids can find a way to experience the pure pleasure of reading a really engaging story, they will love it. The problem is that many kids lag behind in reading ability or have learning disorders to overcome, and this makes reading arduous and unpleasant. By the time they are proficient in reading, they have negative associations with reading and don't seek out engaging texts (or resort to graphic novels because they are easier to read) and therefore never "level up" in the kinds of books they read, and just don't experience the pleasure of reading challenging but very engaging literature.

If parents keep reading to kids through elementary, you can fix all these problems. You can provide your kids with the classic and challenging literature that MCPS will not. You can show them what it feels like to read a longer novel start to finish, and the pleasures associated with this task. You can give them a break from their own reading challenges that can make reading feel like a chore, while still building their vocabulary, experiencing advanced story structure, etc.

If people really don't have the time for 30 minutes of reading a night with kids, you could maybe approximate this with audio books. But I think it's better if parents read with kids because I've found that this makes it easier to ensure kids are following the story, to stop and answer questions about what words mean or what is happening, and to ensure the reading material is age appropriate and not too scary or boring.

I have 3 kids. Read to all of them. One loves to read, one hates it, and one prefers to build intricate Lego structures and stages battle scenes and draws a lot. They are who they are. They are all great readers but they don't all love to read or do it for fun.

How old are they?

What difference does it make? They are late elem school and high school. Not 6 yr olds.

The whole point is reading to them well past when they are 6 years old, so that's why. The implication is that if you'd continued reading to them throughout elementary instead of deciding "oh well some kids just don't like books" then all of your kids would be independent readers instead of just the one who happened to like it without you supporting it much.

Lots of skills are like this. You can let your kids self-select into sports or playing instruments, but some families will find a way to encourage such that all their kids ultimately do it. That's why you see families where all the kids are HS athletes or they are all proficient at piano and violin. It's not an accident -- their parents cultivated that interest instead of just waiting to see which kids naturally gravitated towards those activities.

Well reading is similar. Sure, some kids will like reading no matter what. But you can turn just about any kid into a reader with the right support, just like just about any kid can become proficient at dance or soccer or music if you really prioritize it and find ways to get your kids engaged and willing to do it. And parents also doing these activities will make it much more likely kids will do them too, I've noticed.

I could read to one of my kids all day until I was blue in the face. They would never become a big reader. Just because you can force piano playing until proficiency, it doesn't mean you have a kid who loves playing the piano. Incidentally the kid who doesn't read for fun reads quite well, many grades above level, but alas, does not love it. Why does a kid have to love it to be good at it? They aren't the same. I'm good at a lot of things I don't love to do. So I disagree with the premise that by brute force your kid will have no choice but to love the things their parents have prioritized for them. Ask kids who are now adults how they feel about that sort of parenting.

In my experience, proficiency breeds enjoyment. Sure, there may be some people who are good at things and don't enjoy them, but it's not something I see often. A kid who loves reading is generally going to be better at, and I also think from a practical standpoint, if your goal is to enable your kid to be able to read longer, denser, and more complicated texts as they proceed into higher education, I think it's going to be hard for them to get to that point unless they read a lot. It would be like expecting a kid to do higher level math without ever doing any math except what was assigned in school. I guess it's possible, but it's really unlikely.

I also don't think this is about "forcing" anything. I think the idea is to find a way to make it pleasurable. I think when parents prioritize certain activities, they are highly motivated to find ways for their kids to want to do them. Maybe it's finding the right teacher (or in the case of reading, the right books), offering rewards, allowing a lot of freedom in how they engage in practice, you name it.

Well, that's your experience. My DH was pushed pretty hard by his parents growing up and was very successful academically, but he probably picks up a book for pleasure reading twice a year. It's just not his thing. I guess maybe my MIL didn't offer enough rewards for him in childhood to foster a love for reading, lol.

DP— maybe getting off topic, but I think it doesn’t always carry into adulthood because life gets busy. DH and I were voracious readers as children and adolescents, but neither of us finds much time for pleasure reading these days. Not necessarily the case for your DH but I think it’s pretty common. Separately I still hope to get back to it, maybe after I get out of the weeds with little kids. I mean, I read A LOT, just mostly to them, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, but banning graphic novels is not the smartest move. It was the transition for my then 8 yr old son to go from not reading, to reading voraciously.

Yes! Graphic novels can be great for kids who don't like to read. Get age-appropriate, quality ones with complex storylines. My goal is to get my 8th grader to read "Maus" before he goes off to high school. And my kids embraced a lot of series that are part graphic novel, part text, like the Last Kids on Earth books.

Also, while books are important, don't waste opportunities to read in other areas. When young, DS played a role-play fantasy-type computer game with his Dad that involved a lot of dialog--you had to read different responses and choose them for your character. And there were a lot of conversations in that game. He swears that taught him to read, not his teachers. I give his teachers way more credit, but it motivated him to start caring about reading. We usually keep the captions on movies and tv shows to reinforce text with audio, and I got a subscription to kids' weekly news magazine and forced my kids to read at least a few items each week. They're short, but it introduced them to a more news-style form of writing.

And if you can get them to read books, look for good writers--people who really know how to use language and throw in challenging vocabulary. I've read novels out loud to my kids and you can definitely tell the difference. Good writing is a pleasure to read out loud. Cliche and weaker writing is a slog.